Your feedback

Responses from designer Jim Pugh and other about the new proposed Grand Prix Rule

Following our interview with Stuart Quarrie about the latest on the RORC, ORC and US Sailing sponsored new Grand Prix Rule and the first batch of opinion on this, so many others of you have been in contact to express your views...

From San Diego Jim Pugh of Reichel/Pugh Yacht Design writes:

Last week’s presentation of the new Grand Prix Rule at the ISAF Conference in Barcelona is both encouraging and distressing. The Rule Working Party (RWP) seems to have correctly read their surveys in acknowledging the overwhelming need for this rule, but judging by their proposal they seem to be in danger of falling into the same trap they’re trying to escape right now by relying on a VPP.

On the one hand the presentation of the new rule aims at simplicity, with descriptive phrases used such as “deliberate type forming will enable the rule to be kept as simple as possible.” And on the following page it reads “Box rule type forming physical limits of the principal dimensions will ensure that the boats will have similar performance.” OK, so far, so good.

But then here’s a trap, as the rule is said to have “a required underlying simple VPP which will help avoid horses for courses.” What’s wrong with horses? A deliberately type-forming development rule is supposed to evolve towards favouring the boat with the most optimal performance features. Introducing a VPP to avoid horses for courses greatly complicates the rule, throws out simplicity and immediately type forms the lower handicapped boat. The VPP will not type form good performing features, as it cannot predict the future of yacht design. Instead of horse for courses, this will prompt the creation of slow, rule-specific boats that would in effect be tortoises for courses.

And contrary to its mantra for simplicity, the RWP is hinting towards adopting complex measurement procedures such as wanding which have plagued the credibility of the IMS rule for years. While the IMS is intended to fairly rate a wide range of boats, it is the ultimate complex type-forming rule, type forming every single feature and not one correctly. This is a rule that cannot fairly rate one possible keel area vs. another keel area or one possible spinnaker area vs. another on the same boat, never mind handicapping relatively different boats.

The presentation paper also states “the rule (they must mean VPP) will be tuned to reward performance.” By this the RWP must mean that the VPP will be under constant adjustment as it cajoles boats around the physical box. These random changes risk creating chaos and obsolescence.

Having both the physical limitations box and a VPP box is confusing and decidedly not simple. Put this in another context: how could we make the America’s Cup Rule more expensive? Simply introduce a VPP into the rule formula and watch the research cost quadruple, with the resulting increase in performance and technology being of no redeeming value.

Imagine how much time and energy would have to be wasted to discover the rating limitations of a VPP that’s also constantly adjusted by the rule makers. It is a little like simple, low flat taxes: they actually generate more jobs, profit, income and fun for everyone, but unfortunately this would obsolete the bloated tax bureaucracy.

And as for box rules, the Transpac 52 box rule already exists, and it is a good box. Is the RWP going to develop another box of 50-footers and risk making obsolete the existing TP 52 fleet, simply because the TP 52 wasn’t invented by the RWP? Maybe not, but if it is, they should have the courtesy to inform the current owners who have built and are building Transpac 52s.

What is the solution? Within the boxes the fleet should be level rating. If the RWP is able to stick to the principles - encourage the design of fast safe boats, keep measurement to a minimum, and use a simple scoring system – then the new rule will have far fewer problems in being embraced by the Grand Prix community.


We're not entirely convinced by this horses for courses idea. Our worry is that this rule may result in the boats that are built to the low wind numbers for racing in the Med and others that built are built to the high wind numbers for racing in northern Europe or Australia. Thus we end up with another apples and pears or in today's parlance IRC and IMS, whereas the primary purpose of this rule is to unify the yacht racing world and promote international competition.


From Sydney Rob Drury sends this:

From what I see of the outline for the new GP rule, so far so good! It has the shape of a box rule which is great news! But let's hope it is a 'full' box rule, not some contorted variation thereof! And if simplicity is required, box rule is certainly the way to go!

A few points need further consideration during this formulation stage.
1) Terminology - as it is to be a box rule, I hope all reference to the word 'rating' is eliminated. Mentioning this word conjurs up images of old rules with handicapping correction factors catering for all size and type of boat - let it be first across the line, within a length division, is the winner - how simple is that? And Joe Blow public might begin to understand the sport! And more sponsorship would surely follow!

2) Sail plan and rig. There is still the idea to put a tape measure over the sails and the rig. It is also a requirement to keep the rule as simple as possible. Why measure the sail plan and the rig? Why not simply limit the number of sails that can be carried on board for any one race? Let the sail maker and the yacht designer progress their trade! This also has the benefit of keeping costs under control AND introduces more weight on weather forecasting, which has got to be a good thing! This alone would change the
dynamics of preparation for a yacht race - the grey factor! OK, so one boat might be an upwind flyer, but be a dog downwind - so the loot is shared around a bit more - which has got to be a good thing! More happy yacht owners would result! Maybe there is a need for one measurement - stick height! But let's not get into measuring sails.

3) Costs - materials of construction. Surely it would be wise, to build good size fleets, to keep costs under control. This could easily be achieved by placing limits on materials of construction - leave all those fancy exotic materials to the AC and other 'top end' yachting events. I don't want to be there and I'm sure the bulk of the yachting fraternity dont want to go there either!

4) Water ballast - must have - all yacht owners wish to minimise the liability that now, unfortunately, dominates our sport. And bums on rails for long offshore races especially, is unsafe, and that's where this rule is going.

Box Rule is Supreme! And the beauty of such a rule, as box rule boats become uncompetitive, they will have a second life sailing under IRC or other such systems which have proven to be very suitable and popular for the bulk of cruiser/racers already out there.

A one-timer designer Dave Beck currently sails Schlock 40s, featuring the revolutionary CBTF system, out of Long Beach, CA. He writes:

The framers of the new Grand Prix rule have determined at this point to not allow boats with canting ballast to participate under the rule. On the surface, this makes sense from a cost/complexity/performance tradeoff.

However a closer look at what the aerospace industy calls 'life cycle costs' might be cause to seriously reconsider this issue. Simply put, life cycle costs are the total costs of purchase, parts, labor, materials and overhead for the life of the system, whether its a plane or a boat.

Surely, most owners of serious racing inshore/offshore (Grand Prix) boats would name crew costs as a major expenditure year to year. The size of the crew has a significant impact on this cost. A Farr 40 or any similar size boat is regularly sailed with 8-12 crew. Feeding and housing these people is expensive, even if you are only (?!!!) buying crew dinners, drink tickets and lunches at a weekend regatta in your home area. Adding plane tickets and hotel rooms at Key West, Cowes and so on really runs it up.

Schock 40s, and presumably any similar canting ballast 40 footer rarely races with more than 6-7 crew, inshore or offshore. The boat's systems don't need the hands, and with a displacement of 7000lbs, crew is a significant fraction of the boat's sailing weight. With its narrow beam, there is little if any advantage to tripping over more bodies, especially on an offshore race. This represents a straightforward saving of 30-50% in crew costs, and much simpler logistics since you need to round up 2-6 fewer people for any given event.

I submit that one or two regattas at most will save the owner the additional cost of the canting ballast system, so it would seem the initial cost/investment argument is moot. Further, hydraulic systems of this type are extremely well defined and reliable The performance of the Open 60 and 50 fleet around the world would seem to demonstrate that, aside from the fact that more experience and engineering insight into these systems is accruing daily. If you tack or gybe or knock down with the ballast on the wrong side in a breeze, it's an embarrsing, flat on your face knockdown, but that's all. It's demonstrably not a safety issue.

Granted, the "what happens when you ground at 12 knots," issue is out there, but it is a straight forward engineering issue, and the loads placed on the ballast/strut/hull are little different than they are for any modern high aspect ratio fin/ballast bulb boat in a hard grounding. As you read this, you know that every top design firm in the world is addressing this issue as they look at new Volvo 70 and maxZ86 designs. Again, the performance of the existing canting ballast fleet in this area leaves little to choose when compared to conventional boats.

This brings me to my closing point. The best, most fun, fastest monohulls that we all admire and would kill to sail on are now all canting ballast boats, whether we are talking ocean crossing Minis, Schock 40s, Open 40s, 50s and 60s on up to the multi-million dollar new Pyewacket and Morning Glory as well as the other new maxZ86s in the pipeline. Do we really want the rule that we all want to build and race to for the next five, 10 or more years to exclude the established, breakthrough technology that has finally lifted monohuls out of displacement sailing, especially if the cost/complexity issues are not issues, and if in fact canting ballast may represent a net savings for the owner? Do we really want to start out already a step behind?

At a minimum, should we at least look at having classes in the rule that allow canting ballast. I suspect the mathematics can be made to allow canting ballast and fixed ballast boats to race equitibly together. If not, we should consider an alternative fixed ballast or canting ballast 30ft, 40ft, 50ft and maxi class under the new Grand Prix Rule. That is, two classes at each size level under the same basic rule, and let the market decide what you want to build and sail in.

We entirely agree with you. The dissenters (as usual) are the ones with no experience of sailing these boats.


Rennie McArthur Miller sends this:

We talk about marketing the new rule - I believe Cork CC did the best to support IRM and actually protect IRC racing by forcing boats with a high hull factor to race in IRM.

Will clubs and organisers such as Cowes CC, RORC, UNCL, Key West, Australia, Caribbean, Med IMS, unite and be encouraged to force boats out of IRC, IMS into the new rule like Cork CC force boats of a certain hull factor to race under IRM?

To offer your opinion on the new grand prix rule or any other issue (to do with yacht or dinghy racing) - click here